SUGAR ADVISORY FROM NON-NUTRITIONISTS, THAT’S THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR YOU

SUGAR ADVISORY FROM NON-NUTRITIONISTS, THAT’S THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR YOU

Majid Ali, M.D.

The central tragedy of nutrition in the United States is that the people who claim to be nutrition experts have never helped anyone to prevent or reverse any disease with nutritional therapies. The obedient Lap dog journalists of The New York Times have never effectively exposed this fact. They claim to be watchdogs for the society but have been lapdogs.

A case in point: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) has fourteen members. I looked at the list on February 21, 2015, the day The New York Times published a front page article on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. I carefully searched for a member of the committee who had ever published an article to report his case studies of reversal of any chronic disease with nutritional therapies. I found none. Non surprisingly, the Lapdog Joe of The New York Times who wrote the story did not mention this crucial fact.

What caught my attention in the advisory report was their promotion of fruits in what they considered to be ““healthy dietary pattern”. The scourge of our time is insulin toxicity. How much about insulin toxicity would the Advisoty Committee know? I wondered. Then came the following question:

* How would the Advisory Committee members know anything about insulin toxicity without ever doing insulin testing for anyone?

* How would anyone of them know how the pancreas glands respond to insulin-wise and insulin-unwise meals?

* How would anyone of them ever consider these questions without assuming ethical and legal responsibility for reversing any chronic disease with nutritional and detox approaches?

* Why didn’t The New York Times lap dogs raise any of these questions?

* How would they the know the truth without speaking to anyone who knows such truths?

In September 2013, the Journal of American Medical Association reported that 50.1% of Chinese now have prediabetes or diabetes. Did the members of DGAC recognize how stupid their position on promoting fruits in this age of diabetes is?

Do lap dogs of The New York Times ever wonder about such questions? How would they?

PREMIUM VIDEOS
These are course videos that download to your computer: All sales go to expanding this site – Majid Ali, MD has donated all materials and receives no compensation

Share this:

Like this:

Related

One comment

Point well taken– “nutritionists” unfortunately seem only to be trained in what vitamins and minerals, and how many calories, are in foods, but seem not to have any idea of the over all impact of those foods in the body. They regard a food as if it were a basket of parts, with no idea of what the whole means to the metabolism. Years ago,something similar was demonstrated to about me just how medically unaware many of the conventionally trained nutritionists are, when a nutritionist working at the prestigious Stanford University medical center advised my elderly mother-in-law who suffered from Transient Ischemic Attacks (near strokes) to gain weight by pouring melted butter on her food. The nutritionist obviously saw that by adding a high calorie food she could make the patient gain weight. But what good would it be to put weight on the patient without improving her nutritional status, and in the process of doing so, to further clog nearly closed arteries and cause a stroke?

We are in an age where , as in the Sufi tale of “The Blind Ones and the Elephant”, the blind ones in our hallowed halls of science, are so focused on the pieces that they fail to make any sense of the whole.

This recommendation of sugary fruit in a populace which already has a sugary, simple carbohydrate laden diet, which has already helped create insulin resistant, insulin toxic bodies, surely deserves an award for myopia in medicine, along with chemotherapy for chronic fatigue. No wonder the cost of “healthcare “, which as you have previously pointed out ,is really sickness care” is bankrupting a nation where the true focus of the so-called “research” is the search for the money in medicine. By all “accounts” they are finding it.
,
Patricia Pepper